50 replies to this topic

[StickShift]

Just appeared on Autosport...

http://www.autosport...sp?id=27587&s=5

New engine format agreed
F1 to use 2.4-litre V8 engines from 2006 in bid to reduce power output

Autosport can reveal that Formula 1's major engine manufacturers have reached agreement in principle about the future format of the sport's engine regulations.

Subject to ratification, F1 cars will run 2.4-litre V8 engines as from the 2006 season.

Power reduction and cost saving are the key motives behind the change from the current 3-litre V10 engines, which have seen power outputs climb in excess of 900bhp.

[Johny Bravo]

Originally posted by StickShift
Just appeared on Autosport...

http://www.autosport...sp?id=27587&s=5

Power reduction is certain, but cost saving? How much cheaper will it be if ALL the engine suppliers have to develop a completely new engine starting from zero? I'm 100% sure the teams will spend just as much money on their v8 engines as much they spend on their v10s.

[Lukin]

Plus if they reduce power and keep with tyres the cars will be on rails. More power, less traction! Please!

[giddyup409]

so merc gave up on developing a V10 all together, right? that's why they are looking fwd to 2006?

[marion5drsn]

I have no idea how reliable this is, but for one I will believe it when I see it out their own mouths. From Bernie on down. It will cost tons of money to do this! Just reducing the bore and stroke on the V-10s is far and away the cheaper route! M.L. Anderson

[Fortymark]

And I persume, only 1 engine every weekend too, to save costs?

[Ross Stonefeld]

So, that would mean in 2006, Minardi would have their most up to date engine? Its not like they can still use multi-year old Cosworth V10s...

[MCH]

3,0 - 2(3,0/10) = 2,4

Old engines can be used as a base I guess.

[JtP]

So exactly how much does 2 pistons, 2 conrods, 2 liners and 2 sets of valve gear cost? Not as much as redeveloping the vibration periods and balance inside the engine I'll warrant.

Just Max's next stupid ill considered idea. Oh sorry, that's the previous one, the current stupid idea is new qualifying format for the British GP.

[Fortymark]

Is this really what the engine manufactors wants? Afterall they design and pay for the engines..
BMW and M-B seemed to be cheering for the current formula instead but increasing the life span instead. Makes more sence if the target is to cut down costs.
Maybe 1 engine for 3 races and limit the revs to 17,000-18,000 rpm instead. If cutting the costs and having controll of the output´is the target.

[Megatron]

This will cut down speeds but it will do NOTHING to cut costs.

This whole crap about cost cutting from the FIA is so silly I am almost ashamed for them. It's like the theory that reducing the minimum weight will get rid of ballast. Reduce the weight = spending more to make the lightest chassis (again) and then putting the ballast in.

This whole thing will take F1 to the toliet and will accomplish nothing. If the proposls Max is so headstrong go through, you will see a bunch of Cosworth powered cars running around in three or four chassis.

Go watch a CART race from the mid 80s and you will see F1's future. How wonderful...

[Moanaman]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
So, that would mean in 2006, Minardi would have their most up to date engine? Its not like they can still use multi-year old Cosworth V10s...

Nahh, Paul will just get a gas axe and lop two cylinders off

[Megatron]

I figure Paul will try and get a downsized version of the DFV.

[djned]

[clown]

Yeeehaw! Veeee eights
Can't wait until they bring back pushrods and carbs

Originally posted by Moanaman


Nahh, Paul will just get a gas axe and lop two cylinders off

Minardi can't afford a gas axe.
Probably just take out a couple of spark plugs.

[Scoots]

The rule should be 3 engines per season (rather than 1 engine for 6 races), then come the penalties. Sure Kimi would have been penalized 2 times by now, but he's had 5 engines go in 7 races ... that can't be what we expect for the future.

[312 PB]

Ewwww : what are these going to sound like ... ???

[Enkei]

Originally posted by 312 PB
Ewwww : what are these going to sound like ... ???

Bruuuuuum Bruuuuuum!

:

[Wouter]

What's wrong with V8's? F1 has driven with V8's for a long time. If it is because their mandatory, the V10 is actually the only allowed config now, so that won't change much.

[baddog]

v8s at maybe 16-17000 revs? theyll sound fine.

[eoin]

This should make the engines cheaper for Sauber, Jordan and Minardi. Gary Anderson said that the current engines cost about £400,000 to build and £100,000 to rebuild. If they bring the life of the engine up to 2-3 races, then we could see the cost of the engine build been halved.

It won't have much of an effect on the manufacturers cost.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by Wouter
What's wrong with V8's? F1 has driven with V8's for a long time. If it is because their mandatory, the V10 is actually the only allowed config now, so that won't change much.

Absolutely nothing wrong with the sound. What bothers me is that we go from one 'spec' engine to another. I want to hear V8s, V10s, and V12s over a weekend. The 1994 Ferrari was a dog but did it sound glorious.

[Enkei]

Originally posted by eoin
This should make the engines cheaper for Sauber, Jordan and Minardi. Gary Anderson said that the current engines cost about £400,000 to build and £100,000 to rebuild. If they bring the life of the engine up to 2-3 races, then we could see the cost of the engine build been halved.

It won't have much of an effect on the manufacturers cost.

This whole one engine per x races is a very bad idea. It might save some costs, but it only hurts the thing that is most important.. the racing. It sucks when a driver can't do enough practice laps to save the engine, get's demoted 10 places for a blown engine and not being able to qualify. The engine format from 2002 was fine.

[Megatron]

V8s don't sound particurally bad, I remember the DFV was a real screamer. It may have been built in England, but with F-O-R-D on the cam covers you would be fooled into thinking Holman Moody were responsible for it, it was really loud. I remember Dereck Bell winning Le Mans in 75 with the DFV and said it screamed the entire race (and nearly shook the car apart).

I don't like formula, its not the sound.

Also, perhaps someone can tell me why I read PR on the interet saying all is well and happy and everyone is in agreement and then on Speed they say the exact opposite? It happened with the original meeting to discuss 2008 specs and it was said during the telecast that BMW wanted no part of the proposed engine formula. Not so happy...

[Scoots]

All of the teams agreed to get "something" done, that was the extent of the accord. Max then declared what he wanted and acted like all of the teams had already agreed to it

On the engine rule ... I too would like to allow the teams to make any kind of engine they want and limit them by fuel flow rate, but that would be even more expensive than it is now. The ONLY way to make engines cheaper is to remove/reduce innovation and reduce parts cost, and the only feasable way I can think of to do that is to increase longevity of the V10s ... if they switch to V8s it will cost more up front than just making the 10s last longer. I would like to limit the engines per season rather than by race as that would allow a team to get a better start on the season and may not force them to limit their miles quite so much.

[Megatron]

Yeah, Varsha said on Speed that someoen from Williams said afterwards "They took us in, told us a lot of stuff, then we all went home".

[dworsham]

I can't and don't want to believe this. The FIA is totally wrong here. The FIA needs to find ways to save $s without limiting the technical prowess that defines F1. This and the one engine rule are poor attempts.

[Megatron]

The thing that bothers me is Max's seemingly (so far) total unwillingness to compromise. He basically has said that common ECUs (a big sticking point) are coming and thats that. Anything like this requires a little give and take. We can't have it 100% both ways so lets meet in the middle.

Max seems like its "These are rules, if you don't like them do something else". Thats great to say and all, but when people DO do something else it might be a different story.

The FIA sports car championship was built on formula such as this and for a while improved car count but had zero fan interest and went into a field with R&Ss and a ton of Ferrari 333SPs. With no fans, no one cared if you could buy a car for less money or if it was cheaper to run, there were no sponsors!

They have taken parts of that formula, rampid cost control, low tech, spec tires, etc, and applied it to F1. How wonderful.

[Fortymark]

Quote Autosport http://www.autosport...sp?id=27596&s=5

Some other manufacturers are rethinking their position already
Mario Theissen:

“There are several reasons to vote for the V10 and the most important is that the V8 came about three years ago when the technical directors were requested to come up with a 700 horsepower engine,” he said. “At that time there was a discussion about safety and nothing else. Nothing about cost. Some technical and engine people still feel bound by this request. In reality, however, the team principals and Bernie and Max have changed their objectives.



“The focus is on cost-cutting now, which is quite different. If you need to do a 700 horsepower engine without any cost-cutting measures it would make sense to go to a 2.4-litre V8, but in this case you would have an engine which is maybe 5% less expensive than a V10 and carries the same technology. If at the same time you tried to cut costs by restricting design or materials or extending engine life, you wouldn't have 700bhp anymore but 650bhp or less. If Formula 2 is introduced with 4.0-litre engines and 600bhp plus, I don't see the difference and don't think it would make sense to have a 700bhp F1 engine.

“I think the target has to be readjusted. Today it really is about cost-cutting and that's why I not only vote for a V10 but also for extending engine life. Cost-cutting can best be achieved by extending engine life because it means you build less engines per year and parts cost are the biggest proportion of the engine budget.”

[chester316]

Originally posted by Megatron
This will cut down speeds but it will do NOTHING to cut costs.

This whole crap about cost cutting from the FIA is so silly I am almost ashamed for them. It's like the theory that reducing the minimum weight will get rid of ballast. Reduce the weight = spending more to make the lightest chassis (again) and then putting the ballast in.

This whole thing will take F1 to the toliet and will accomplish nothing. If the proposls Max is so headstrong go through, you will see a bunch of Cosworth powered cars running around in three or four chassis.

Go watch a CART race from the mid 80s and you will see F1's future. How wonderful...

What I don't understand is why the FIA don't either limit the amount of ballast that each teams can use or just ban the use ballasts altogether.

[FordFan]

If they do that, then they'll have to do away with the minimum weight rule as well. It would be a sheer miracle if the teams produced a car to weight without ballast.

I'd rather see them significantly increase the minimum weight.

[eoin]

Originally posted by FordFan
If they do that, then they'll have to do away with the minimum weight rule as well. It would be a sheer miracle if the teams produced a car to weight without ballast.

I'd rather see them significantly increase the minimum weight.

If they increase the weight they would just add more ballast- not sure how safe having a few 100kgs of ballast is.

If they raised the min. weight couldn't teams just make the lower parts of the cars out of very heavy materials, giving the same effect as ballast?

[FordFan]

I'm sure that's what they would do if ballast were ever banned.

I'm also sure they would just add ballast if the cars were required to be heavier, but that would slow acceleration, reduce cornering speed, and add breaking distance, which would aid passing, I would think.

Far as the safety issue, I'm not sure. You'd think the car would be less likely to get airbourne, thought the ballast would have to be secured in case of accidents. And, any accidents would have more energy associated with them, which would be a bad thing.

[angst]

Originally posted by Megatron


Max seems like its "These are rules, if you don't like them do something else". Thats great to say and all, but when people DO do something else it might be a different story.

Well, the strange thing is that is the job of the FIA. It's only because of the ridiculous 'concorde' agreement that the teams (at least certain teams) have been able to hold the FIA to ransom and have the rules how they, basically, want them. As far as what people will DO, what will that be, exactly? Start a series that will need to be ratified by the FIA? Will the manufacturers really invest in making a series that they may not stay a part of? At the end of the day the manufacturers are in it for publicity, nothing else. The ones who aren't winning aren't going to hang around indefinately. One of the strengths of the F1 WDC over the last 30-35 years has been that teams have been involved because that is what they do. They will find an engine supply because motor racing is their business. The likes of Williams and McLaren haven't pulled out at any point because this is their business. For the manufacturers it is not. F1 spending at the moment is ludicrous and will kill F1 as we know it. Any downturn in the world economy and what part of Ford's or Renault's or FIAT's budgets are going to go first?

Originally posted by Megatron


The FIA sports car championship was built on formula such as this and for a while improved car count but had zero fan interest and went into a field with R&Ss and a ton of Ferrari 333SPs. With no fans, no one cared if you could buy a car for less money or if it was cheaper to run, there were no sponsors!

The Sportscar series' of the world have suffered because of the medias obsession with F1, and because the REAL sportscars were killed off by Bernie. Just like F3000 is such a poor, limpid immitation of what was F2. Bernie and F1 have gobbled all the media/sponsorship 'air' of motor racing and are in the process of suffocating themselves.

[Spunout]

Formula One is about speed & power.

V10 for me please

If FIA wants to cut costs, force teams to use less engines. Limit testing. Ban exotic materials. And above all - LIMIT ELECTRONICS. Next time Ross Brawn says F1 fans love TC, LC and all the other stuff they have, gag him. I´ve had enough of complaints like "but even road cars have this and this..." So? Road cars have ABS, ESP and all the other stuff F1 cars don´t have, and I don´t hear anyone complaining. 99% of F1 fans love 900 hp / 19000 RPM, enough downforce to go upside down (theoretically!) and so on. 1% of F1 fans love electronics they cannot see, understand or compare. Let´s face it, none of us really knows how exactly Ferrari TC is superior compared to Minardi TC - it is not like Rory Byrne will explain it to us. But we CAN see, understand and compare throttle technique of MS/RB (at least up to certain extent ;) ).

My point is technology becomes more and more advanced, and if F1 keeps going to current direction...

- Gaps between teams will increase
- Soon we WILL have ABS and ESP
- Low end teams will be forced to quit
- There will be less action on track...

F1 will become test lab of engineers.

To put it simply, something has to go.

F1 cannot stay ahead of road cars and other racing cars in EVERYTHING, but if there is one advantage I want F1 to keep, it is HORSEPOWER. Call me simple-minded if you want, but currently no other racing series (and no, I don´t count drag racing) has as powerful engines as F1, and I want to keep it that way

Thank you.

[RTH]

This move on its own will do virtually nothing to cut costs, and is more about reducing power in an attempt to improve safety.

It's revs that cost the real money, if they are serious about cutting engine cost then a mandatory sealed rev limiter and/or fuel flow limiter valve would achieve this, otherwise as now each year the engines will rev higher and higher producing more power at sky high costs.

This one move on its own will not be good enough, it needs to be part of a package that brings in all aspects of the car.

[Scoots]

Originally posted by Spunout
- Gaps between teams will increase
- Soon we WILL have ABS and ESP

While I agree with what you said for the most part ... the gaps between teams/cars is as small now as it's ever been, the problem is a lack of ability to pass. ABS is outlawed, and not likely to come back.

I think the average F1 does appreciate the technology, maybe not the minutia, but there is a knowledge that the technology is there and that there is huge effort put into it and that F1 is special. My wife (an interior designer) is an F1/MS fan and she is not as interested in the technology as I (an engineer) am, but it does make a difference that she knows it's there ... does that make sense? I'm not saying we should have technology for technologies sake, but we also can't do away with it simply, and I can practically guarantee F1 will not go to carburators any time soon

[Spunout]

"and I can practically guarantee F1 will not go to carburators any time soon"

I don´t want F1 to become NASCAR either ;)

What I am trying to say is they cannot have ALL the technology there is. For example I like hi-tech V10s too, but not TC/LC. Since I am pretty sure majority of F1 fans share my opinion, IMO if FIA and teams want fan base to grow they have to think about it. Apparently Max Mosley has already done so

My whole argument is based on thinking about what technology F1 cars need to have and what technology can/must be dumped. ABS and active suspension were dumped, TC & LC are next. But since they cannot effectively police either of them, implementing ECU is only option they have. It´s a compromise but what can you do? They failed to dump TC and it is not hard to see teams have figured out a way to imitate LC. I´ve had enough of ultra-clean corner exits and computer-perfect starts (TC & LC reduce passing, too), and so have many others.

"the gaps between teams/cars is as small now as it's ever been"

But they are growing. Already midfield teams have huge difficulties to stay alive and less hope than ever to surprise bigger teams (for example Jordan 99).

"the problem is a lack of ability to pass."

Slower cars rarely pass faster cars...

"ABS is outlawed, and not likely to come back."

Hopefully not!

[Scoots]

Originally posted by Spunout
Slower cars rarely pass faster cars...

I don't have a problem with that, I just wish faster cars could pass the slower ones

So, we are agreed ... less technology can be good for racing.

Problem, less technology reduces money required for that technology, but does not reduce what teams spend. In fact, in recent history the elimination of technologies has had no effect on reducing what teams spend.

The only way to control costs I can think of would be to force all of the teams to both open their books and operate independant of any other entity, and only allow components to be purchased from accepted FIA vendors or made by the team. Then put a spending cap on that.

[Spunout]

"So, we are agreed ... less technology can be good for racing."

Certainly!

"Problem, less technology reduces money required for that technology, but does not reduce what teams spend."

Spot on. But...

"The only way to control costs I can think of would be to force all of the teams to both open their books and operate independant of any other entity, and only allow components to be purchased from accepted FIA vendors or made by the team. Then put a spending cap on that."

IMO there are ways to control what teams spend, although none of them is as effective as creating spec series (something I don´t want F1 to become anyway!). The question is how much "bang for the buck" teams are getting? If you can use exotic materials and advanced electronics, by spending more you can create a huge gap between your team and smaller teams. 2-4 secs you gain are WORTH the money you spend. But if electronics are cut down and exotic materials banned, no matter how much you spend the gap won´t be 2-4 secs - it will be less. And the best part is you still have technological war going on, better engineers creating better cars. Sure, money will always be important but not as important as now, while the role of engineers will be pretty much the same. Creativity will be as important as ever, but you can no longer get guaranteed 0.3 sec edge by using exotic materials your competitors cannot afford. You have different cars, different teams, different designs and so on. it´s still F1, not NASCAR. In the end it´s all about RIGHT balance between racing, competition and technology

[Scoots]

Ideally a simple, but strict spending cap of say $30M with little or no technical regulation (other than crash testing) would have us seeing 30 car fields with good competition and interesting innovation. Then the technical side would be all about efficiency and stealing from your competitors

[angst]

Originally posted by Spunout
"So, we are agreed ... less technology can be good for racing."

Certainly!

"Problem, less technology reduces money required for that technology, but does not reduce what teams spend."

Spot on. But...

"The only way to control costs I can think of would be to force all of the teams to both open their books and operate independant of any other entity, and only allow components to be purchased from accepted FIA vendors or made by the team. Then put a spending cap on that."

IMO there are ways to control what teams spend, although none of them is as effective as creating spec series (something I don´t want F1 to become anyway!). The question is how much "bang for the buck" teams are getting? If you can use exotic materials and advanced electronics, by spending more you can create a huge gap between your team and smaller teams. 2-4 secs you gain are WORTH the money you spend. But if electronics are cut down and exotic materials banned, no matter how much you spend the gap won´t be 2-4 secs - it will be less. And the best part is you still have technological war going on, better engineers creating better cars. Sure, money will always be important but not as important as now, while the role of engineers will be pretty much the same. Creativity will be as important as ever, but you can no longer get guaranteed 0.3 sec edge by using exotic materials your competitors cannot afford. You have different cars, different teams, different designs and so on. it´s still F1, not NASCAR. In the end it´s all about RIGHT balance between racing, competition and technology

Bang on the button. In fact by getting rid of the exotic materials, high tech electronics (and reduce the importance of the aerodynamics) then the engineering interest will most likely increase. At the moment everyone is designing in the same direction, there is only one real design philosophy going on because there is one way to be competitive. Everybody's a winner. Teams will be more likely to try new ideas, especially as everyone will be effectively starting from scratch. It will be easier to see the drivers at work, especially with more mechanical grip than aerodynamic grip and they will be more able to be run behind other cars and race.

I had a thought. Is Max playing a clever political game with his hardened attitude to the manufacturers? Is he trying to flush out those that are less likely to hang around for the long haul?

[FastMex]

I don't know how accurate this is, but I've heard that actual F1 speed is about 40% engine output and the other 60% aerodynamics and tyres. Based on this, engineers will find a way through the latter 60% bit to compensate for less engine power, thus maintining at least the cars' current speed, even with a 2.4L V8 engine. Please confirm.

[angst]

Originally posted by FastMex
I don't know how accurate this is, but I've heard that actual F1 speed is about 40% engine output and the other 60% aerodynamics and tyres. Based on this, engineers will find a way through the latter 60% bit to compensate for less engine power, thus maintining at least the cars' current speed, even with a 2.4L V8 engine. Please confirm.

Absolutely right, which is why they have to reduce the importance of aerodynamics at the same time to make it worth while reducing the engine size. What they want to do is increase the drag while reducing the downforce.

[RTH]

The top speed of the cars now is no higher now than it was at say Monza in 1971 around 200mph when they had less than 500bhp, - but downforce in those days was in comparison very small .

The difference is the extra 400 bhp now available to them (900) is being used to force high downforce wings through the air and exert a force of about 2000kg downwards on the car pushing the tyres in to the tarmac enabling it to go so very fast around corners and set such high average speeds despite a mass of tight corners being put in to all the race tracks, so ultimately engine power drives downforce.
If you cut engine power now to say 600 BHP if you left the cars as they are now top speed would be drastically cut, or you would reduce wing to get back speed with slower cornering , its a trade off they would decide by lap times.

[Spunout]

It´s not about laptimes. It´s about cornering speeds. That is why reducing aerodynamic grip and most importantly tyre development (biggest single reason for increased cornering speeds) is the way to go.

RTH,

The top speed IS higher now (Monza record 380+ kph), although I agree thanks to high drag of F1 cars and extra wings top speed hasn´t increased as much as horsepower (that never happens with any kind of cars, actually ;) )

[Fortymark]

More power had been fun if the downforce level was the same. Now this isn´t happening, when the cars have 900hp the teams opts for more downforce because the engine is so strong that they can have an medium to high downforce level all of the time.
Reducing power could affect racing in a positive way because the teams is forced to reduce the downforce when the engine isn´t so strong anymore.

600hp and slick tyres, F1 could be fun again.

[ckkl]

I disagree (purely from speculation).

If engine power was reduced, downforce would be reduced by a similar margin. But how does this allow for easier overtaking? The car making the pass would still lose front end grip (which is already reduced since engine power is down) when trailing the car in front in a corner before the straight.

I think an obvious step in cost cutting is to regulate ballast materials. Perhaps the FIA could choose a supplier of ballast for all the teams and they can choose the materials and the respective density/volume. This will rule out exotic materials for ballast at least.

[Spunout]

"600hp and slick tyres, F1 could be fun again."

Why slick tyres?

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by Spunout
"600hp and slick tyres, F1 could be fun again."

Why slick tyres?

More mechanical grip, which means that drivers isn´t so dependant on aero grip.
Cars can go more side by side racing each others.